Author
Topic: Housing, planning, and development in North Mymms (Read 632661 times)

Dear JetI was intrigued to notice your PS "John, fields and fodder has little to do with RVC extension. RVC is a business like any other". I'm afraid you're ... well, somewhat less-than-correct. Without the fields etc RVC would not be here: our cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, goats, etc need grazing, exercise/amenity space, the cultivation of feed, straw for bedding, ... and all the rest of it.RVC was granted a quota of development years and years ago: all the buildings do not total up to exceed that.As a charity, we can't afford to build when we want, what we don't need ... so things have taken a lot longer than expected.If we WERE a "business" our activities would be centred around winning the best profit for a set of shareholders. If you really know us, you'll know that that basic-test is simply not applicable in our case.Best to try to clarify these things less misunderstandings creep in ?Kind regards - John

Dear John,Many thanks for your kindly worded information.Charity is big business nowadays.It matters not a jot what the development is , Business,residential or whatever it is still a building in green belt land.Myself and my pets are indebted in more ways than one by the advancement in Veterinary science which RVC has a part in so do not missunderstand my post.If it is brown, with 4 legs and neighs it is a horse.If it is made from building materials it is a building.If its orange it could be a LLama.Vets are like farmers you never see one on a bike, oh dear I bet I am now going to be told there is a cycling vet.Fields also make good sports pitches With the relaxation on developments in the village, RVC is of little concern. At the moment?regards,jetBy the way do you buy locally or get your fodder etc at best price from other areas, you can answer privatley if you wish or of course choose to keep your affairs private, I just wondered?

Dear JetThanks for yoursSOME charities are big business, but not usIf you don't have any building on greenbelt land, then no farming, very little electricity, water, gas, ... But at least using agricultural land for agricultural-related activity is a jolly sight better than speculative housing, engineering works or whatever Brown, 4 legs and neighs could be a pony of course ...! (overlooking the old chestnut about 2 brown cows in a field ... "aren't you worried about BSE ?" Nah, I'm a horse ..." )You bet I'll tell you there are vets on bikes ! (how COULD I do otherwise ?!) - AND knocked off 'em by speeding cars ...We buy a LOT locally, but depending like everyone else on availability (eg "store"/ off-field), prices, quality, ... Hence our hopes to have acquired the 20 acres in Hawkshead Road - which'd have kept it in conventional useKind regards - j

Dear John,Thanks for your reply and I confirm that my original post was "clumsilly" ( deliberately misspelt) worded and refered to structures in green spaces.Like Tony B. you judge big business as multi billion, to little me your RVC is big business. It occupies a lot of land ( by neccesity) and is bigger than the average business in this country ( over 90% of business's are one or two man bands) ( no not musical) why do I feel the need to explain everything lately?I am so ignorant I thought a horse, Equus caballus was a pony also part of the genus Equidae but basically one of less than 13/14 hands high? or £25 where I was brung up.I would have wellcomed you gaining more land and am sorry that you lost out, it would have had better use by RVC than it may have in the future.Do you by any chance drive VET 1 ? as I have seen it around.By the way because you are involved in RVC I do not assume that you are a Vet, by any means. Thanks for your honesty in revealing your sourcing, I did doubt that there was enough agriculture around here to support your requirements after all this is no longer "the country" around here is it? regards,jetBy the way I did feel that my PS appeared to be rude so I had edited my post the next day.

John_fraser

It matters not a jot what the development is , Business,residential or whatever it is still a building in green belt land.

If you ban all building in this area businesses will move out as the structures become too small for them or as they fail to meet the basic functions required. This will turn the village into a dormitory of London very quickly. Likewise as people expect new facilities in their homes – I lived in a house with an outside toilet until I was five – they will move out if they can’t adapt their property to match.

If you want to kill BP then you couldn’t do it faster than banning all building in the area.

odds blood,All I said was stop the total free for all that has developed and go back to the older regulations and codicils ( which were binding and agreed to when a house was purchased) which allowed for reasonable development in line with the surroundings. Exampe do not turn detached houses with space all round which look nice into terraces with a small gap between them that don't.Example do not turn a two bedroom house suitable for a small familly into a five bedroom house with say 6 people as it doubles the population density in that area , thus totally altering the concept of the original development.Will every one be happy when the area has been turned into one big bodge up?As simple as that no more. A personal opinion.regards,jet

So if you have a house and love it and don't want to move.........you're not allowed any more kids? Hmm an interesing one. Fact is Jet, families are getting bigger, and there is very little housing for larger familes. Anyone who is trying to move right now, will agree to find a 5 or 6 bed house is very difficult......so we have to extend.

I do agree that some thought has to be put into extensions not to change the pretty look of the village, or take away to much of the lovely green surroundings......I guess it comes down to compromise. Which is fair enough, but we still have to try and stop "new" developements popping up on our greenbelt. Which is what the argument is here.

Dear John,Precisely, however all residential extensions are being passed.I will let you in on the scam.What you do is you put in some over the top designs which are sometimes refused, then your representative appeals and reduces them to what you really wanted in the first place. It looks like you are being told what to do by the planners, who like all committe types are little hitlers and they are passed.Council collects fees, representative gets extra fees for doing three times the workDoes this ring any bells with anyone.Council is happy with us ruining our own area as in case you didn't notice BP is not exactly the councils ideal place.Now by over extending we make the property price go up thus preventing newer people having a chance and moving or even remaining in the area.We think we are then elite but all we have done is financed the council and the building society who will move in for the kill when we are all over extended. It happened 10 years ago with a much better ecconomy than we have got now.Hope that explains it in a more realistic way and demonstrates that I am not just knocking people who appear to want to better themselves but really want the village to be as attractive as possible to us all. I am afraid more people, cars, skips etc etc do not make the place attractive.regards,jet

Like I said this arguement is too late for some. If you want the village to be pleasant and peaceful then the BBC mast will need to be pulled down and all the roads will need to go as they are all urbanised.

Dear Mooniemad,If you look at the history of B.P. you will find that the Mast and transmitter is the reason B.P. was shall we say developed. It was to house the workers and with the proximity of the Station allowed B.P. to become a commuter Village.I am appalled that some individuals consider that the pavement and verge is a place to store their building materials, the damage is never put right as it isn't theirs is it.Word of advise the monatary value and length of construction of some extensions etc brings the works within the requirements of the Construction Management regulations concerning management and health & safety etc. These works are no different from commercial building sites and I have noticed some site display a lack of adherance to H & S directives. Be advised that even if your builders have P.L. insurance that the property owner is liable for their safety on site and may be pursued in event of accident. Ignorance is no defense, make sure your insurance is up to it.Not a lot of people know that.

Joke for RVCHorse ( 16 H.H.) walks into bar and orders a beer." Why the long face" says the barman. Groan.

My neighbour had a real problem the other day, his gardener sprayed weedkiller on his lawn.Although he was a bit angry he later saw the "fungicide"Double groan.Can anyone post a worse joke!regards,jet

literatedrewman

Hello everyone, my names literatedrewman and, with a friend, i've been exploring this site. Firstly I'm startled at the strength of feeling and levels of angst present in Brookmans Park-surely that should be a teenage preoccupation?(I'm 18). I've chosen to reply on this post, as it is the one most recently updated. Firstly, I have no problem with extensions, this coming from someone whose neighbours have all had them. Often they are constructed sympathetically, whilst providing employment to architects, electricians, builders, plumbers and the like. If the council were particularly opposed to a planning application I'm confident they would only too soon reject it.

1) is Mr Brewer a Hillman Imp fan?1a) suggest John Fraser gets a new icon for his role as ImpMan...............no, no, ImpMan don't turn to the poor side..........the farce is strong in this one .....etc etc

2) all this argument is exactly why I suggested we should all move on some short time back. Do I really think Jet wants to ban all extensions - no. Do I really think Anna would allow any extension of any sort - no. Do we all actually agree that each case has to be judged on its own merits - yes. So why continue to argue the point?

3) I actually think Jet makes some very good points but like I say I am sure neither he nor I would extend any such argument so it banned all housing work. Each to be judged on it's merits. I would like to highlight also that this is exactly what is happening - I know of a neighbour who was not allowed to extend in exactly the "terrace-creation way" (your words not mine... ) that Jet has mentioned. This despite the fact that other houses in the road have done just this. I also know some other folks who were not allowed to do something they wanted to do with their porch or garage (I forget exactly what it was)

So you see controls are operating

MC

Logged

John_fraser

Jet, with the exception of a possible handful of cases, you can not possibly know what the person originally putting in the plans really wanted. You see each compromise as a final victory for the developer’s/builder’s/homeowner’s underhand tactics over a ineffectual and naïve council. I think someone from the Green Belt Society should comment on how many developments they stop completely. Whenever I visit their site they appear to have some victories.

Mark, I think you are seeing agreement where it doesn’t exist. Possibly I’m being unfair here, but JET and Astra’s postings appear to object to all building. Or at least object to all by default.

This debate is the most important one in this forum and I feel it is going along the right lines, even if a consensuses is some way off. JET’s vision of the local green space being built over is probably going to become reality over the next fifty years. The only chance that it can be stopped is by a grassroots opposition movement. That movement will fail if the more vocal members alienate local people by objecting to minor housing extensions.

P.S. I should declare an interest at this point. I have a planning application in process for building a conservatory.

Just to clarify, I couldn't really care what people do, they have to live with it.I just object when it spoils my surroundings.My expose on the way to get most things passed is factual, I have a contact who is involved in this and I don't think it fair to comment further, I have also been involved in various applications professionaly. I was only saying how things can be achieved if they initially apear to be refused, bit of public information.If guidelines were set by statute then it would not need a panel to give personal approval. It would simply be "this is okay, this is not." and would apply from original development plans, setting a reasonable precededent for the future.Its called control, and with out it, its simply out of control, out of control being a not very could position to be in.Must be a big or wierd conservatory to need planing permission, John, sure you need it?Just passing comments, nice to hear other ideas and opinions, not telling people what to do by any means.regards,jet

Sorry John just to clarify again, I meant do you need permission not do you need the conservatory.If it faces South it will be too hot Regarding strife I had this original thought, I think its original anyway so treat it as copywright:-War, it is pity that it is based on might,not on what is wrong or right.Think about it friends.On the basis that only 5% of the membership contributes, why don't we all cut out the missconstrued words and just discuss it over a pint or three at the BPH we may all find that we are on the same side and cut Captain Paranoia out.Have a lovelly Sunday, youall,regards,jet

Logged

John_fraser

On the planning permission – which I assumed you meant anyway – yes I do need it. I’m not a solicitor, but I believe you need permission for anything after you go beyond 15% of the original property, and mine has already been extended well beyond this. I’d need permission to put in a porch now. Before anyone asks, these extensions were done before we bought the house.

Regarding strife – This is either by Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain or a book I read that had them as characters. “A row is like a thunderstorm. It’s frightening while it lasts, but it clears the air.”

If guidelines were set by statute laid down when the house was built they would be inflexible over time. As I said, I spent some of my childhood in a house with an outside toilet, my mother grew up in a farmhouse with no running water and no toilet. A state my grandparents still lived in the late 60s. I can also remember in the 70s the government gave automatic grants to allow houses to build inside bathrooms. A badly worded statute from the 1920s may have forced houses to have remained with substandard facilities. Who knows what we may need in the future or find unacceptable?

The idea of statues would backfire over time. Developers would ensure literally anything would be ok for all futures developments. Then we would have no control. The current system is far from perfect, but it could be much worse.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2002, 11:26:05 pm by John_fraser »

Logged

Mary_Morgan

I have slowly settled into the reason why I found some of the post on this subject unsettling. I did not "aspire" to live in BP, I just did. I moved into the village when I was a year old. Why did my parents "aspire" to live there - I don't know - but after the war when my father came home he found a job in Potters Bar and it probably seemed like a good idea. He had never lived anywhere except Hertfordshire and North Africa, and I do not know where else - quite possibly nowhere more exciting than Salisbury Plain and Catterick. My mother was Irish, came to London in the 30s and was a nurse in London before and for the duration of the war.

These two people instilled into me a tolerance of everything and anything, and a true value of how much I should value my "priviliged" life in BP. and how much we should welcome "newcomers" to the village (there was a fair bit of building going on in the 50s).

I think, by never having "aspired" to live there, I find less to complain about other people who come to live in the village.

I do hope that BP does not join up with the towns and villages that surround it because I like to see the greenfields between them.

Somebody in an earlier post mentioned possible building on Leach's fields - sure it may happen, that is what Hubert Leach hoped when he bought them 50 odd years ago, but apart from the "newer" houses on the right as you go up Moffats his hopes have not been fulfilled. If the Leach family still own them, one has go to admire their staying power!

Mary

PS But one can never say that BP was a cute little Hertfordshire village - it wasn't - it was built as a dormitory to London (Brookmans Park Estate's advertising was based on the fact that it had a station with good connections to London), and that is what it still is (suburbia with fields round it) but it was a jolly nice place to live, and I hope it still is.

Brookmans Park Estate's advertising was based on the fact that it had a station with good connections to London

I have been digging in the site's archives and came across the original Brookmans Park Estate's brochure from 1926 advertising Brookmans Park as a place to move to. Some might enjoy reading about how they tried to attract people to the area almost 80 years ago. There are also some old photographs and maps of the area. click here (Apologies for not all the south-east map being there - we are trying to recover the complete image)

« Last Edit: July 08, 2002, 09:18:50 am by admin »

Logged

The Brookmans Park Newsletter has been supporting the village and our local community since 1998 by providing free, interactive tools for all to use.

What an interesting read. And from reading it through it seems they expected building work through the years........the area is still developing........as its still quite new compared to many towns.

Also wanted to say I loved Mary's post, and agreed entirely. I moved here because I thought the area was pretty, and had local schools. I also thought it would be a friendly and welcoming area. I have found my local neighbours all to be very nice and friendly, and we have a very good relationship. Sadly I don't find everyone else to be quite so welcoming, and there is a definete feeling of being a "newbie" to the village. Also from a lot of comments on here, its easy to see why. Some of the longer term residence don't like change........so must hate new people moving in. However, sometimes it is for the better. There was a house up the road from me, that had become very run down, overgrown trees blocking the front, and the house itself was in desperate need of paint and some TLC. The new people have moved in, and I've enjoyed seeing the house transform.

Brookmans Park, is a beautiful area, we are lucky to live here, it has changed through the years, and will continue to do so, but I do believe it will always keep its appeal

Everyone who has come to visit me since I moved have commented on how beautiful it is round here, and where as, when I first announced I was moving here, they all thought I was mad to move so far out......now they understand.........and amazinly enough, 4 people I know are all desperate to move here now.

If they are to build new houses, I just hope they are in keeping with the area, rather than an estate of new properties like they have done in Shenley. Old shenley is so lovely, full of charm, and they you get to Porters Park, and its just awful.

Dear Anna,precisely!Unless new houses are built on the edges (horror) It is not going to be easy to fit new ones in. It has been done and I will relate an example here.A Bungalow was sold circ 500K, it housed a family of four with 3 cars comfortably. It was knocked down and two houses were built and sold for 645K each. The potential occupancy on the same plot size is now twelve people and 8 plus cars. The green open plan front is now mainly blocks and the appearance is now estate type rather than rural. All this into the same sewer and surface water drains. Now shall we all do it, trouser the profit and go mess up another village? Or shall we try and stop this type of development and keep the place special.Example 2, Hillman imp end. Houses with gaps between allowing views over fields and trees have now been extended to fill in the gaps. The view is now a form of terrace. Is this progress, also seems that each tin god car needs its own little temple to reside in. This is the type of thing which detracts from the charm of the area. Just as Anna says it is like in Shenley.Hope I have now presented my fears for the future in a more comprehendable way than I did earlier.It is also lovelly to see new people breath life into a tired property, but don't forget some older people may not be up to doing it financially or physically and I don't see why they should suffer because they want to finish their days in an area the love, hope people understand what I mean here. regards,jetPS M.M. it looked cute to me when I moved in

I started off about a "neighing pony" not for the finer points of equidae, but as a link with other themes on this site - then found that my cranial hard-drive had lost recall of the lines I was going to cite:Overall my mind had first turned to those "society" themes of "tomato" - "tomayto", "I own a horse (BMW) ... no you don't it's a pony (Hillman Imp) " ... but then had to give you a BSE joke in lieu of getting to recall the following bon mots - which might have some relevance to some of this site's correspondence ?

> " It's awf'lly bad luck on DianaHer ponies have swallowed their bitsShe fished down their throats with a spannerAnd frightened them all into fits

> "Phone for the fishknifes NormanAs Cook is a little unnervedYou kiddies have crumpled the serviettesAnd I must have things daintily served

Are the requisites all in the toilet?The frills round the cutlets can waitTill the girl has replenished the cruetsAnd switched on the logs in the grate

It's ever so close in the lounge dearBut the vestibule's comfy for teaAnd Howard is out riding on horsebackSo do come and take some with me

Now here is a fork for your pastriesAnd do use the couch for your feetI know what I wanted to ask you -Is trifle sufficient for sweet ?

And now I see these fields once more ?Clothed thank the Lord in summer greenPale corn waves rippling to a shoreThe shadowy cliffs of elm betweenColour-washed cottages reed-thatchedAnd weather-boarded water millsFlint churches, brick & plaster patchedOn mildly undistinguished hils -

They are still there ? But now the shireSuffers devastating changeIts gentle landscape strung with wireOld places looking ill and strangeOne can't be sure where London endsNew towns have filled the fields of rootWhere father and friendsDrove in to to shoot

Tall concrete standards line the laneBrick boxes glitter in the sunFar more would these have caused him painThan my mishandling of a gun

> "Encase your legs in nylonsBestride your hills with pylonsO age without a soulAway with gentle willows …… let's say goodbye to hedgesand roads with grassy edgesand winding country lanes …… destroy the ancient village signsbut strew the roads with tin signs …… for every raw obscenitymust have its small "amenity"its patch of shaven greenand hoardings look a wonderin banks of florobundawith floodlights in between

Leave no old village standing …Let no provincial High StreetLook as it used toBut let the chain stores place hereTheir miles of blank glass fascia …

When all our roads are lightedBy concrete monsters sitedLike gallows overheadBathed in the yellow vomitEach monster belches from itWe'll know that we are dead

> "God save me from the Porkers …His land rover come hooting …Then dinner with a neighbour it does not matter whichConservative or Labour So long as he is rich

A faux-bonhomme and dull as wellAll purse not pedigree …We must admit that though he's hellHis womenfolk are worse …Loud talk of meets and marriagesAnd tax evasions' heard …

The strange example that they set … "

Regards - john

It'd be a shame if we lost track of the fact that a lot of the separate strands on this site, are actually different aspects of one broadly-common theme ... ?

and who managed to see the Leader Page article in the Evening Standard of yesterday (9 July) ? Quite a few interesting points regarding the green belt and the interlocked issues which we cannot simply ignore

Logged

Astra

I have just returned and read the website. I think you are all losing the plot.

If you like your 3 bedroom house and don't want to move - extend it to a 4, 5 or 6 bedroom house and when there are no more 3 bedroom houses left, then what. Smaller families will not be able to move into this area - not that they would want to as by then it would be a great big terrace of hotch botch houses with absolutely no character at all. Can no one see this but me. It is bad enough that BP is one big building site for the whole of the summer. No wonder we never win the best kept village prize any more.

I even know someone who moved to the other end of the road I live in to get a bigger house. Mind you that was when the building lines were being strenuously enforced. Not so now. Quite frankly you can do what you like and s** the rest of us.

Hope you are all stuck here to reap the so called benefits of your short sightedness ! ! ! !